How much improvement is possible in a few months?

[lindsayh]

It's my view that most false rankings are not malicious but done on non C2 machines and posted innocently and its best just to get them weeded out so that apples are being compared to apples, particularly at the top of the tree.

[Cyclingman1]

Thanks for replies. I really don't like calling out the possibility of someone posting inaccurate times. If the times are legit, I would feel like a real jerk.

But to the question of does any of it matter? In the big scheme, no. But as Lindsay says,

I think we all have an interest in helping ensure that the rankings here have as much credibility as possible and that we can help C2 do that by calling out anomalies.

It takes a lot of work and luck to get to the top of the rankings and even more work to stay there. The accuracy of the rankings is an incentive to work for a place in them. The ranking system is a big motivator for a lot of ergers. If it turns out that times are not legit, a lot is lost for a lot of us. I have corresponded with Dena quite a bit in the past. May do so over this, although not sure how much can be done, or even needs to be done.

[Dickie]

The problem here is that you guys are competitors and the vast majority of the rest of the world is not. The rankings were conceived as a motivator for that vast majority and you guys now want to alter it to be a competitive tool. C2, in there right mind, would never change this, it is what they use to sell product. They did, however, make a change for us, the verification code, USE IT, and forget the rest of the world.

Fred Dickie

[max_ratcliffe]

Thanks for replies. I really don't like calling out the possibility of someone posting inaccurate times. If the times are legit, I would feel like a real jerk.

I think it'll be a bit saddening if the times have been entered in good faith, but from the wrong machine. I guess that they would be good times irrespective of the machine brand, but to have the thrill of being top only to find out that it's not apples vs apples would be a disappointment.

<>
It takes a lot of work and luck to get to the top of the rankings and even more work to stay there. The accuracy of the rankings is an incentive to work for a place in them. The ranking system is a big motivator for a lot of ergers. If it turns out that times are not legit, a lot is lost for a lot of us. I have corresponded with Dena quite a bit in the past. May do so over this, although not sure how much can be done, or even needs to be done.

While too much comparison can be "the thief of joy", one of the really cool aspects of C2's equipment is that every unit is nominally the same. My goals are to achieve a certain %ile of age group etc times. Will it really matter if I don't get there? Well, nobody else is going to care, but it's a motivator for me.

[Gammmmo]

OK, going off at a tangent. If anyone posts fictional performances and/or uses PEDs, you have to ask what their motivation is and why. They probably feel like something is lacking about themselves and maybe for some don't want to put in the hard graft to have something that is considered respectable from a competitive standpoint (most people if they are dogged enough can find a sport which they can will themselves to be above average at). To me, this misses the point of performance at sport. If what you're doing isn't bringing you money, it should be done for fun or curiousity, and beyond that for some as part of a deep intrinsic need which you feel is being addressed on a very personal level. For me, I love it when I find something I can enjoy the process with and see how far I can take it.

IMO it's such a waste of time to post something with PED use on the grounds that any remotely sane individual would surely always have that little voice in his/her head knowing that it wasn't valid i.e. they did some training, nailed the technique, thought about the process, did the performance....and for what? Deep down they know it was a waste of time because it wasn't "just them".

The problem here is that you guys are competitors and the vast majority of the rest of the world is not.

I'd like to see it used ALOT more. IMO Concept2 should be making efforts to do that. When I post some of my performances they are often towards the top of the rankings. I simply can't believe what I do is anything that special. I want much more competition at the top. Take for example LWT men 40-49 for 2020 and for the 30mins distance. You have a difference of over 300m between #1 and #2. What does that tell you? That the guy in #1 place is indeed very fast, but where are all the others in between?

The rankings were conceived as a motivator for that vast majority and you guys now want to alter it to be a competitive tool.

Those two things aren't mutually exclusive though.

the verification code, USE IT, and forget the rest of the world.

This!

[mitchel674]

The problem here is that you guys are competitors and the vast majority of the rest of the world is not. The rankings were conceived as a motivator for that vast majority and you guys now want to alter it to be a competitive tool. C2, in there right mind, would never change this, it is what they use to sell product. They did, however, make a change for us, the verification code, USE IT, and forget the rest of the world.

Fred Dickie

Good points. A quick glance at the top 50 in several categories in my age group reveals 23-40% of the rows are unverified. I doubt Concept2 would have any interest in removing all of these names. I also doubt that most of these folks are cheaters. Perhaps many of them are rowing on older machines without verification codes. I still cannot fathom the motivation for posting a fictitious unverified time. Is there that big a thrill to see your name on a list knowing that your entry was bogus?

[winniewinser]

If it's a choice of not rowing or using a non C2 then I'll choose to row regardless of perceived accuracy between brands.

Could there not still be differences between different C2 machines....even if same DF?

I do try and complete all speed work and tests at work where they do have C2's. Apart from getting a C2 at home I don't have much choice.

[max_ratcliffe]

If it's a choice of not rowing or using a non C2 then I'll choose to row regardless of perceived accuracy between brands.

Could there not still be differences between different C2 machines....even if same DF?

I do try and complete all speed work and tests at work where they do have C2's. Apart from getting a C2 at home I don't have much choice.

No machine will ever be exactly the same, and as they age they become a bit creaky (like the rest of us!).
If the bearings beneath the seat seize, for example, then there will be a lot of energy wasted from screeching the seat up and down the slide. Your legs would certainly be doing extra work, but not into the chain, so it would not be measured.

[Gammmmo]

If it's a choice of not rowing or using a non C2 then I'll choose to row regardless of perceived accuracy between brands.

Could there not still be differences between different C2 machines....even if same DF?

I do try and complete all speed work and tests at work where they do have C2's. Apart from getting a C2 at home I don't have much choice.

No machine will ever be exactly the same, and as they age they become a bit creaky (like the rest of us!).
If the bearings beneath the seat seize, for example, then there will be a lot of energy wasted from screeching the seat up and down the slide. Your legs would certainly be doing extra work, but not into the chain, so it would not be measured.

If it's anything like a bicycle chain, there is scope for a handful of watts to be lost by using a worn or unlubricated one. Indeed a whole "industry" has grown up in the bicycle world as to how efficient different lubes are and vendors tout lubes which will actually save you energy and even pre-prepared chains optimised for just a handful of rides. IIRC paraffix wax was often one of the most efficient. Obviously with the erg there is far less scope for variation in this area.

[max_ratcliffe]

If it's a choice of not rowing or using a non C2 then I'll choose to row regardless of perceived accuracy between brands.

<>

It's not a matter of perceived accuracy as such. It's more that different brands use a different conversion from the work measured (the "erg" bit) to speed. Some cheaper rowers aren't actually ergometers (they don't measure work done), so there is no possible way that they can be the same as a concept2.

None of this necessarily means that concept2 are better, more accurate or even a nicer colour than the competition. But what it does mean is that for a fair comparison to a result on a concept2, you need to row on a concept2.

[Gammmmo]

If it's a choice of not rowing or using a non C2 then I'll choose to row regardless of perceived accuracy between brands.

<>

It's not a matter of perceived accuracy as such. It's more that different brands use a different conversion from the work measured (the "erg" bit) to speed. Some cheaper rowers aren't actually ergometers (they don't measure work done), so there is no possible way that they can be the same as a concept2.

None of this necessarily means that concept2 are better, more accurate or even a nicer colour than the competition. But what it does mean is that for a fair comparison to a result on a concept2, you need to row on a concept2.

You have to wonder who in their right mind would post a performance on the Concept2 rankings on an ergo any other than a C2!!! It's not rocket science.

[hjs]

OK, going off at a tangent. If anyone posts fictional performances and/or uses PEDs, you have to ask what their motivation is and why. They probably feel like something is lacking about themselves and maybe for some don't want to put in the hard graft to have something that is considered respectable from a competitive standpoint (most people if they are dogged enough can find a sport which they can will themselves to be above average at). To me, this misses the point of performance at sport. If what you're doing isn't bringing you money, it should be done for fun or curiousity, and beyond that for some as part of a deep intrinsic need which you feel is being addressed on a very personal level. For me, I love it when I find something I can enjoy the process with and see how far I can take it.

There are all sorts of reasons.

Accidental, see this often, results far outside what is possible.

Wrong machine, seen people post waterrower results for instance.

Messing the rankings up. Also seen this, just for being able to piss people off.

Real cheating, I know one guy who did this for years, posting Wr. After a few years, he “stopped” restarted, but stopped posting results.

Ped use. At the moment Eddy Hall has the 100m ski WR... there is another brit, who looks like a extreem user, 100% not natural, posting fast ski times atm. Also have seen guys being caught in other sport, cycling, fitness who did post rowing results, so 100% certain Ped use.

[max_ratcliffe]

[<>

Accidental, see this often, results far outside what is possible.
<>

Yup, I did 150000 in a bit over an hour on Sunday. Took me a few seconds to spot the extra zero that I'd typed.
Shame 150k isn't a ranking distance.

[winniewinser]

OK....I'll make sure to only test on C2's whenever possible from now on. Only my 10km and 60' PBs have been set on a non-C2 rower....I don't have time to row for that long at work.

Steady state longer sessions I will do on whatever I have available and take the results with a pinch of salt.

Should I not mention any results from non-C2 rows on here? I'll add a caveat that the data is not C2.

[jackarabit]

Recent example of entries expunged from C2 rankings: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=185532

We can plow this field back and forth and crosswise, avert eyes, fly above the fray, offer excuses. Simple fact is that challenges of suspect age group records have been and will be investigated and a determination of validity made by C2 upon receipt of information, or opinion supported by rational argument, that they may be bogus.